Sigma 14-24 f2.8 sony vs Tamron 17-28 f2.8

Hampus Lindman · Nov 8, 2019

Sigma 14-24 f2.8 vs Tamron 17-28 f2.8 on the Sony A7R III?

I´m also considering these:
Sony FE 16-35/4,0 ZA OSS Vario-Tessar T*
Sony FE 16-35/2,8 GM
Sigma 14/1,8 DG HSM Art
Samyang AF 14/2,8 AS IF UMC

Which one do you recommend and why? I shoot everything.

Braineack · Nov 8, 2019

I rented the sigma a few weeks ago.

Dunno what else to say other than it's sharp and renders well.

Can focus very close, and weighs an epic-butt-ton. Hated the reverse zoom ring.

Derrel · Nov 8, 2019

Quite different focal length ranges. 14 vs 17 is considerable, and 24 and 28 are very different lenses.

Derrel · Nov 8, 2019

A prime and a zoom can not be compared.Go to an angle of view calculator and study the differences; although it might not appear to be much of a difference, the difference between 24 mm and 28 mm is about 10 degrees in angle of view, but in the amount of visible distorting of objects near the edge of the frame, and in the diminished the size of background objects, the 24mm and 28mm are two wildly different focal lengths.The same goes for the 14 mm and the 17mm, they are _significantly _ different focal lengths!

Hampus Lindman · Nov 11, 2019

Derrel said:
A prime and a zoom can not be compared.Go to an angle of view calculator and study the differences; although it might not appear to be much of a difference, the difference between 24 mm and 28 mm is about 10 degrees in angle of view, but in the amount of visible distorting of objects near the edge of the frame, and in the diminished the size of background objects, the 24mm and 28mm are two wildly different focal lengths.The same goes for the 14 mm and the 17mm, they are _significantly _ different focal lengths!

Agreed, i will go for the Sigma 14-24.

Hampus Lindman · Nov 11, 2019

Braineack said:
I rented the sigma a few weeks ago.

Dunno what else to say other than it's sharp and renders well.

Can focus very close, and weighs an epic-butt-ton. Hated the reverse zoom ring.

I saw the pictures and will go for the 14-24, thanks for the reply!

Derrel · Nov 11, 2019

I thought that you would be better off with a longer lens, such as a 17 to 28 or 16 to 35, but I did see a lot of very fine photographs made with the sigma 14 to 24 at the wedding which Brianeak used it at.

Check the weight specification. Have you ever used a lens that is that large and heavy? It turns regular photography into quite a quite a pain in the ass. Using a really heavy and large lens changes the photographic experience.

Hampus Lindman · Nov 11, 2019

Derrel said:
I thought that you would be better off with a longer lens, such as a 17 to 28 or 16 to 35, but I did see a lot of very fine photographs made with the sigma 14 to 24 at the wedding which Brianeak used it at.

Check the weight specification. Have you ever used a lens that is that large and heavy? It turns regular photography into quite a quite a pain in the ass. Using a really heavy and large lens changes the photographic experience.

The weight is fine and the camera is already light so it doesn´t bother me at all. But i see how it may be a dealbreaker for some.

Derrel · Nov 11, 2019

Well until you have used a big coffee can on a light body, then you perhaps do not understand how unbalanced that lens will be on such a small body. It's not so much the weight per se as it is the overall balance and the bad ergonomics.

Hampus Lindman · Nov 11, 2019

As i said, the weight is no issue for me but i get your point.

Derrel · Nov 11, 2019

I am not talking about the weight, but the balance, the ergonomics. I can tell you don't have little understanding of what I'm trying to say , quite possibly because you have never even held the camera and the lens in your hands. I would suggest that you actually go to an camera store rather than buying your kit off the internet

Derrel · Nov 11, 2019

You say that you shoot everything, but you have decided to buy a an ultra wide-angle zoom lens. What you really should be thinking about is a more versatile lens like the 16 to 35 mm range. We do not know what other lenses you have.The 14 to 24 mm locks you into basically wide-angle views and has very little in the way of any focal length that is not wide-angle. The Wider the angle of a lens the more experience it requires from the photographer, and I get the sense that you are not that experienced. In all actuality I think that the Sony 16-35 F / 4 OSS would be a great lens buy. There is a reason that Sony and Canon have made 16 to 35 lenses. I have been involved with photography for about 45 years now , and I have seen many people fall into the Trap that you are falling into. I used to sell photo and video Goods at retail. I would like you to get something that really serves your needs rather than fattens the profits at Sigma, and leaves you with an expensive one trick pony. But of course ultimately the choice is up to you. I would however recommend that you go to an actual camera store that sells the sigma and that you put it on the camera that you plan to use it on and demo the lens for 10 minutes.

Hampus Lindman · Nov 14, 2019

Sure buddy. You get the "sense" that i´m not that experienced. I took a look at your pictures and i know for sure who is the better photographer. Instead of trying to start arguments on some photography forum, you should get out and shoot. The time spent writing 45000 comments obviously has done little for your own photography. I want to keep it short but one last thing. You shouldn´t write conflicting arguments in the same comment. It exposes your true purpose of answering a post, which is trying to be right all the time, at the expense of logic and actually being helpful.

"You say that you shoot everything, but you have decided to buy a an ultra wide-angle zoom lens. What you really should be thinking about is a more versatile lens like the 16 to 35 mm range. We do not know what other lenses you have.The 14 to 24 mm locks you into basically wide-angle views and has very little in the way of any focal length that is not wide-angle. The Wider the angle of a lens the more experience it requires from the photographer, and I get the sense that you are not that experienced. In all actuality I think that the Sony 16-35 F / 4 OSS would be a great lens buy."

Derrel · Nov 15, 2019

Oh ouch, a school boy has taken me to task... I looked up your name on Facebook, and I'm pretty sure I have determined which one you are. There are several people who have the same name as you do, and all of them appear to be about the same age as you. It's so good to hear that you're such an excellent photographer...that must be why you need to go looking for people to help you decide which lens to buy for your new Sony. I'm glad that you have a camera from one of the world's best makers of television sets. I hope you get some great pictures you can upload to Facebook and Instagram, and I hope that those pictures earn you lots and lots of likes. You deserve it ! Good luck in college.

Joseph Hanna · Dec 15, 2019

I own a 15mm prime lens of which I love. It’s a tad challenging (at least from time to time) because it’s manual focus. If you’re on your game, and thinking, it’s easy to get pin sharp focus and produce some of the best ultra-wide photos possible. However.... I borrowed the relatively new 14-24 and simple fell in love with it. For me it was pretty inspiring. I dunno but I think I like the “in general” Sigma look altogether. My 35mm Sigma prime continues to produce genuinely outstanding pictures.

I just loved everything the 14-24 produced pic wise. It’s auto focus while not quite on par with the Sony 12-24 is awfully, awfully close and at a much more affordable cost, plus the Sigma takes filters where the Sony requires a “rig” to add typical landscape type filters. When the budget allows and without doubt, the Sigma 14-24 will be my next lens.